Macphun Luminar?

Ted Wilson said:

None of those apps actually modify the RAW file they use the data and then export out another format, the RAW file is unchanged, but you are no longer using the RAW file once you work on it with anything you can always revert back to the original RAW file if you want if you want to keep the edits you made you will need to duplicate the image and then revert the original back to RAW.

in short Photos does send a RAW file to the extensions, but once they are edited they send a jpg back to Photos leaving the RAW file unmodified so you can always revert back to it.

Click to expand...

I was aware of that. We often refer to "editing raw" on the assumption that everyone knows you're not actually changing the RAW data (exceptions abound, of course). Not everyone realizes that I guess, so thanks.

But to be equally precise not all extensions themselves interpret and render RAW that's piped to them from Photos. Some use the macOS; I think Pixelmator does. Probably others.

And I discovered another extension that can save in another format rather than sending a JPEG back to Photos. This can be important if you want something besides a JPEG (like say a TIFF). The extension is for Graphic Converter: you send it to GC, and it has all kinds of tools to work on the image, kinda like Pixelmator. GC does its own RAW conversion, and converts the RAW to a TIFF for editing. Once in its editor, you can save in ton of formats, like PNG, TIFF, PDF, or GC's own format. As with Affinity, the file has to be saved manually, and doesn't automatically get imported into Photos. But it can actually do even more than Affinity: you can edit most all of the metadata, geolocation info, etc. (but this only applies if you're saving it OUTSIDE of Photos).

I use Luminar and have for the most part of this year. As a whole I would classify it as the best cost per result option for those looking for an affordable option for advanced but easy photo editing.

The Good IMO

1. The UI is very uncluttered but advanced users may add as many editing filters or "brick's" as they like.

2. Each filter, some of them specialized, often have one or two sliders to accomplish usually tricky operations so typical edits such as "de Haze" take seconds and have very good results

3. Quality/flexibility. I find the quality of the results very good and the rage of edits can be subtle to extreme. The Filters run in series so if you Put Shadows & Highlights first in the chain (at top) it works before hitting the other filters (work better than pulling back Highlights in exposure filter)

4. Integration. While Luminar does not yet have any DAM, it integrates well into apps like Lightroom or Photos well. Arguable it seems made for Photos.

The "not so good" IMO

1.While Masking is super easy there are no "auto mask" or "find Edge" tools as of yet so it's still tedious.

2. Depending on your camera I find the RAW conversion does not always include all corrections in the current version, So my old Pentax K10 files to my Fuji X-E2 files look better when converted in Photos or Capture One then later Edited as TIFF or Jpeg in Luminar.

This brings us to delayed promises, Macphun have a long list of intended features slated for 2017 but they seem to be delayed by the sudden launch of Luminar Windows which can not be a small project. (unfortunate company name though) I have been told better RAW support is coming but geez guys hurry up, its just some code!

Cheers

Roger